# Sadhna Sahu v. U.O.I. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 7 ILRA 296
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-07-23
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 20071 of 2024
- **Bench:** Shekhar B. Saraf, Manjive Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sadhna-sahu-v-u-o-i-ors-52260
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A.S.G.I., Sri Bimalesh Ch. Tripathi, C.S.C.,
Sri Sudarshan Singh

Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package:
Insurance Scheme for Health Workers
Fighting COVID-19 - The scheme was
extended via several notifications, including
Notification
No.
F.No.Z.21020/16/2028-PH
issued on 26.04.2021. By virtue of this
notification, the scheme was extended upto
24.03.2021. The notification clarified that the
period would continue for 180 days w.e.f.
24.04.2021. Petitioner's husband, a Ward Boy
working in the O.P.D. located opposite the
COVID
section,
succumbed
to
COVID-19.
Benefit was rejected on the grounds that the
death of the petitioner's husband occurred three
months after 28.03.2020, and he was not
directly working in the COVID ward but was in
the
O.P.D.
department.
Held:
Beneficial
schemes provided by the Government are not to
be interpreted in a technical manner but must
be viewed holistically. Health workers at risk of
being
impacted
by
COVID-19,
including
accidental loss of life due to contracting COVID19, are to be covered under such schemes.
Since the petitioner's husband passed away on
08.05.2021, he would be covered under the
scheme. The authorities were directed to
provide the petitioner with ex-gratia payment in
accordance with the law. (Paras 4, 5)

Writ Petition allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1.Sangeeta Wahi Vs U.O.I. & ors., 2023 SCC
OnLine Del 6808

## Text

296 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
revision
filed
on
behalf
of
present
petitioner
assailing
the
order
dated
2.3.2024. The final outcome of the
recounting, subject to objection if any at
the relevant time, shall be kept in the sealed
cover and shall be subject to the final
decision of the revisional court. The
revisional court, before whom revison filed
on behalf of the petitioner is pending
consideration, is expected to decide the said
revision strictly in accordance with law as
early as possible.
---------
(2024) 7 ILRA 296
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

Writ C No. 20071 of 2024

Sadhna Sahu ...Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Nishant Mishra, Sri Vinay Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Bimalesh Ch. Tripathi, C.S.C.,
Sri Sudarshan Singh

Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package:
Insurance Scheme for Health Workers
Fighting COVID-19 - The scheme was
extended via several notifications, including
Notification
No.
F.No.Z.21020/16/2028-PH
issued on 26.04.2021. By virtue of this
notification, the scheme was extended upto
24.03.2021. The notification clarified that the
period would continue for 180 days w.e.f.
24.04.2021. Petitioner's husband, a Ward Boy
working in the O.P.D. located opposite the
COVID
section,
succumbed
to
COVID-19.
Benefit was rejected on the grounds that the
death of the petitioner's husband occurred three
months after 28.03.2020, and he was not
directly working in the COVID ward but was in
the
O.P.D.
department.
Held:
Beneficial
schemes provided by the Government are not to
be interpreted in a technical manner but must
be viewed holistically. Health workers at risk of
being
impacted
by
COVID-19,
including
accidental loss of life due to contracting COVID19, are to be covered under such schemes.
Since the petitioner's husband passed away on
08.05.2021, he would be covered under the
scheme. The authorities were directed to
provide the petitioner with ex-gratia payment in
accordance with the law. (Paras 4, 5)

Writ Petition allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1.Sangeeta Wahi Vs U.O.I. & ors., 2023 SCC
OnLine Del 6808

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf, J.
&
Hon'ble Manjive Shukla, J.)

1. Heard Sri Nishant Mishra and Sri
Vinay Kumar, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner, Sri Sudarshan Singh,
learned counsel appearing for Respondent
No.1
and
learned
Standing
Counsel
appearing for Respondents No. 2 to 6.

2. This is a writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India
wherein the petitioner is aggrieved by the
impugned order passed by the respondent
no.6 under 'Pradhan Mantri Garib
Kalyan Package : Insurance Scheme for
Health Workers Fighting COVID-19'.

3. The grounds taken by the
authorities are dual in nature. The first
ground is that death of the petitioner's
husband took place subsequent to three
months of the date 28.3.2020 and therefore,
the same would not be covered by the
7 All. Sadhna Sahu Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
297
Scheme. It is to be noted that the Scheme
had
been
extended
vide
several
notifications including the one bearing No.
F.No.Z. 21020/16/2028-PH issued on April
26, 2021. By virtue of this notification it is
clear that the Scheme was extended twice
uptil
24.3.2021.
Furthermore,
the
notification clarifies that the period shall
continue for a period of 180 days w.e.f.
24.4.2021. Since the petitioner's husband
expired on 8.5.2021, he would be covered
under the Scheme. The second reason given
in the rejection order that the petitioner was
not directly working in Covid ward but was
a Ward Boy in the O.P.D. Department.

4.

The
beneficial
schemes
provided by the Government are not to be
read in a technical manner and are required
to be looked in a holistic manner. The
relevant portion of the order dated
28.03.2020 is provided below:-

 "i. It will be a comprehensive
personal accident cover of Rs. 50 lakh for
ninety (90) days to a total of around 22.12
lakh public healthcare providers, including
community health workers, who may have
to be in direct contact and care of COVID19 patients and who may be at risk of being
impacted by this. It will also include
accidental loss of life on account of
contracting COVID-19."

5. Upon perusal of the said
paragraph, it appears that Health Workers
who may be at risk of being impacted by
COVID-19 including accidental loss of life
on account of contracting COVID-19
would also be included in the same order.

6. Reliance may be placed on the
Delhi High Court judgment in Sangeeta
Wahi -v- Union of India and others,
reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6808.
The ratio of the said judgment is provided
below:-

 "8. Covid-19 Pandemic struck
the country in March, 2020. Lakhs of
persons lost their lives in the Pandemic.
Police
officials,
healthcare
workers,
Doctors, Paramedics, etc. were braving the
Pandemic and were in the line of duty to
provide assistance to persons who fell
victims to the life taking virus. Concerns
had been raised regarding the country's
healthcare system and its capacity to cope
with the massive outbreak. Doctors, nurses,
paramedical staff, including security staff
in various hospitals, were working day and
night to streamline the patients to ensure
that the patients are screened at the earliest
and are quarantined so that the virus does
not spread. Persons who were affected by
any fever were in a state of panic and not
knowing what is to be done, they were
rushing to hospitals not knowing where to
go and whom to meet. People were
crowding OPDs and the causality in the
hospital to get themselves screened. At this
juncture, it was these security guards,
paramedical staff, who not only to ensured
the safety of the hospitals but were also
acting as guides by directing the patients to
approach the correct centre. It, therefore,
cannot be said that the security guards who
were posted at various places were not in
direct contact of Covid-19 patients. It is
well known that Covid-19 virus spread
through air and any patient who was
coming to the hospital could have been
infected by the virus, whether he/she was
symptomatic or not. The patients got in
touch with many service providers, be it
security guards, nurses, paramedical staff,
who might or might not have been posted in
the
Covid-19
ward.
The
Central
Government, therefore, cannot take such a
narrow approach that only such persons
298 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
who were posted in the Covid-19 ward or
centre only will be covered by the
"Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package:
Insurance scheme for health workers
fighting COVID-19". The Scheme was
actually brought out as a measure to
benefit the family members of persons who
became martyrs in the line of duty while
protecting thousands of persons affected by
Covid-19 Pandemic. Taking such a narrow
view actually goes against the spirit of the
Scheme which was meant to provide
immediate relief to persons who were
tackling the situation and were protecting
the lives of thousands of patients. This
Court can take judicial notice of the fact
that any person having mildest of the
symptoms
of
Covid-19
was
getting
himself/herself tested. Poor people who
could not afford private testing centres
were rushing to the Government hospitals.
A normal person would never know that
there is a special Covid- 19 ward and his
normal reaction would be to approach
either the OPD desk or the casualty of the
hospital to meet the Doctor. At that point of
time, to streamline the queue, the services
of the security guards were availed. The
security guards were also directing the
people to the Departments where the
patients have to approach in order to get
themselves treated. It, therefore, cannot be
said that the late husband of the Petitioner
herein, who died of Covid-19 which he may
have contracted in the Hospital, was not in
direct contact with the Covid-19 patients.

 9. The Scheme has been brought
out as a social welfare scheme and
application of such schemes are not to be
put in Procrustean beds or shrunk to
Liliputian dimensions. Welfare Schemes
must
necessarily
receive
a
broad
interpretation. Where Scheme is designed
to give relief, the Court should not be
inclined to make etymological excursions
[refer: Workmen v. American Express
International Banking Corpn., (1985) 4
SCC 71].

 10.
The
Apex
Court
in
Regl. Provident Fund Commr. v. Hooghly
Mills Co. Ltd., (2012) 2 SCC 489, has
observed as under:

 "24. If we look at the modern
legislative trend we will discern that there
is a large volume of legislation enacted
with the purpose of introducing social
reform by improving the conditions of
certain class of persons who might not have
been fairly treated in the past. These
statutes are normally called remedial
statutes or social welfare legislation,
whereas penal statutes are sometime
enacted
providing
for
penalties
for
disobedience of laws making those who
disobey, liable to imprisonment, fine,
forfeiture or other penalty.

 25.
The
normal
canon
of
interpretation is that a remedial statute
receives liberal construction whereas a
penal statute calls for strict construction. In
the cases of remedial statutes, if there is
any doubt, the same is resolved in favour of
the class of persons for whose benefit the
statute is enacted, but in cases of penal
statutes if there is any doubt the same is
normally resolved in favour of the alleged
offender.

 26. It is no doubt true that the
said Act effectuates the economic message
of the Constitution as articulated in the
directive principles of State policy. Under
the directive principles the State has the
obligation for securing just and humane
conditions of work which includes a living
wage and decent standard of life. The said
7 All. Mohammad Umar Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
299
Act obviously seeks to promote those goals.
Therefore, the interpretation of the said Act
must not only be liberal but it must be
informed by the values of the directive
principles. Therefore, an awareness of the
social perspective of the Act must guide the
interpretative process of the legislative
device."

 11. In view of the above, the
narrow and pedantic stand taken by the
Central Government cannot be accepted
and the Petitioner is entitled to the benefit
of
"Pradhan
Mantri
Garib
Kalyan
Package: Insurance scheme for health
workers fighting COVID-19".

7. Keeping in view the above
judgment, we are of the view that the
present case is very much covered by
'Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package
: Insurance Scheme for Health Workers
Fighting COVID-19' as the petitioner's
husband was a Ward Boy working in the
O.P.D. that was just opposite the Covid
Section. The pedantic view taken by the
authorities is without application of mind
that too with narrow interpretation of the
said Scheme. Such an interpretation would
be wholly contrary to the intention of the
said Scheme.

8. Accordingly, the impugned
order dated 29.2.2024 is quashed and set
aside with a direction given on the
authorities concerned to implement the
Scheme
expeditiously.
The
petitioner
should be provided with the ex-gratia
payment in accordance with law preferably
within a period of three months from date.

9. With the above direction, the
writ petition is allowed.
---------
(2024) 7 ILRA 299
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

Writ C No. 20480 of 2024

Mohammad Umar ...Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Suhel Ahmed Azmi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Passport Act, 1967 - Sections 10(3)(e)
& (5) - Impounding of passport - Criminal
case relating to matrimonial dispute was
pending which was stayed by the High
Court - Mere pendency of a criminal was
made the basis for impounding the
passport - No reason regarding the
misuse of passport was recorded - Effect
- Held, prior to passing the order of
impounding passport, the passport officer
after
considering
the
facts
and
circumstances of each case has to record
reasons to arrive at a conclusion that due
to pending criminal proceedings in a
criminal court, the passport holder may
misuse the passport for avoiding his
appearance before the court and can delay
the conclusion of the the proceedings.
(Para 11 and 14)

B. Interpretation of Statute - Word 'may'
- Effect - Effect of using the word 'may' in
S. 10 (3) is that it is not necessary that in
every case falling under Section 3, the
passport officer is mandatorily required to
impound the passport. (Para 11)

Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited: